School of Architecture University Lusiada, Lisbon, 3-5 May 2007
zation of the workshop). The fourth stems from the wonderful physical and architectural setting within which it took place (School of Architecture and Art, Lusiada University).
It is almost impossible for anyone beyond the organizers to state more clearly and more effi-ciently the theoretical agenda of the workshop.
Therefore, the most accurate way of approaching it is to quote some of its highlights.
Given the fact that “architectural education is open to innovation through experimentation, the object of the workshop was the impact that new forms of experimentation and the subsequent new concep-tions of architectural form have on the teaching of architectural design”. Basic epistemological ques-tions for the workshop were: What are the visible or invisible lines directing and generating the experimental part of architectural education?
What is the impact of this new experimental part on the pedagogical implementation of architec-tural education?
“Since architectural education has always been dominated by the teaching of architectural design”, particular thematic issues for discussion in the workshop were the following (2nd Call for Papers):
“Architectural design: As the basic conceptual tank, the course of architectural design consists of a specific architectural paradigm. As atelier or as laboratory, as lab or as studio, ‘integrated’ or ‘verti-cal’, the course of architectural design is always the decisive melting pot of architectural education, the efficient catalyst of architectural knowledge, the powerful multiplier of architectural creativity, the effective developer of a framework of thinking, understanding and doing architecture. It is the dynamic ‘heterotopia’ where the articulation and integration of architectural ideas take place, through experimentation, critique, confrontation, exchange, argumentation, debate or even imposi-tion.
It is structured upon its own process (the teaching method), its own tools (the selected design themes, assignments, and all other educational means), its own concept (the educational aims and strategy),
driving value system), its own conception of archi-tecture and of the architect, its own implemented pedagogy”.
Advances in technology: Nowadays, the applica-tions of digital technology are not only powerful devices constituting the main tool for designing, modelling and manufacturing architectural forms.
As tools are also a powerful, efficient and meaning-ful medium for thinking about the domain of their application, about the objects resulting from their use, about the subjects that choose to employ and that legitimize them as expressive signs manifest-ing a certain way of (re)conceivmanifest-ing, (re)thinkmanifest-ing, contemplating and experimenting with architec-ture.
In this revolutionary environment of information society, architecture as a cultural statement and manifestation of our life in space seeks its redefini-tion and its reinvenredefini-tion as a new framework of values and principles, of knowledge, skills and competences, of tools and means, of priorities and preferences, as a new paradigm.
New terms, notions and concepts emerge in the architectural vocabulary: liquid, hybrid, hyper, virtual, trans, morphogenetic, animation, seamless, skin, interactivity, parametric, nodes, machinic, morphing, self generating, build-ability, and so on.
The consequence is that new values, new aesthetic principles and new forms of experimentation are rapidly grounded in the consciousness of the architects and have a strong impact on architec-tural education and on the teaching process”
Changes in pedagogy: The traditional architectural design studio is progressively transformed into an experimentation lab in most of the cases domi-nated by the computer or even dispersed into distant and virtual work places from the students’
homes. The tutorials are mainly developed on the basis of PP presentations and not on the drawing board any more.
The knowledge of a significant number of software is in our days a necessary condition, which has already marginalized the traditional courses on drawing and representation techniques. CDs with multimedia paperless presentations tend to replace
The main objectives of the workshop:
● To establish a dialogue and exchange of ideas and experiences among teachers who have incorporated in their architectural and urban design teaching practices the support of digital design techniques and the new conceptions of form.
● To map the teaching methods they use and the architectural design modules they conceive, structure and develop by employing innovative digital design techniques of generating and manufacturing architectural forms.
● To outline the educational objectives of those modules, the teaching strategies they follow and the learning outcomes they expect to achieve.
It is almost impossible for someone participating in this workshop not to mention the sense of accomplishment from the cognitive aspect of the sessions. That was the main achievement of the workshop: to create conditions for an interesting content from a cognitive aspect. The fact that the papers, not only by the keynote speakers but also by almost all the presenters, were focused on the conceptual categories of the sessions, resulted in the coherence of their content and in the evolu-tionary character of the following discussion.
Keynote speakers
Kas Oosterhuis and Ilona Lenard presented their internationally recognized architectural work not only as a final product but also as a process inte-grating biological concepts within it. Bob Sheil presented architectural projects conducted with sophisticated manners by students at the Bartlett School of Architecture emphasizing the “making”
process. Paul Coates gave a clear picture of his pioneer architectural work based on algorithms from his first 15 years of teaching. Soren Sorensen talked about architecture, and how it is represented through the introduction of new emerging tech-nologies. George Legendre developed a panorama of the design technologies through his academic involvement. Fabio Gramazio and Matthias Kohler presented their innovative architecture work combining and cooperating architecture with manufacturing.
At the end, Neil Leach presented the state-of-the art within the field of digital morphogenesis intro-ducing a rather optimistic view.
The sessions
The conceptual categories of the sessions were: 1.
New values, new priorities. 2. New teaching prin-ciples, new concepts. 3. New practices, new tools.
4. New pedagogies, new teaching approaches.
For the first two conceptual categories: New values, priorities, principles, concepts
Architecture seems to have found its crucial current priorities through experimental
approaches based: on optical 3-D motion capture systems, on ‘reactive spaces” through research fields such as Ambient Intelligence or Hybrid Environments in the media laboratories, on light-weight structures. To put it briefly: new media entail and/or presuppose new didactic experimen-tal approaches.
Architecture seems to explore new principles and concepts in the name of the “fixed image versus image in motion” and of the “performative” as a mode of practice.
Architecture seems to have kept some of its old values and principles reconsidering them, though, with a new view: There is still an emphasis on the
“slowness of the mass” and on the deepening of knowledge through a historical framework.
Moreover the notion of the “shared design” is not as new as it is supposed to be.
Architecture seems to have kept a critical view regarding: 1. Notions of identity, gender, locality and social concerns through the post-structuralis-tic perspectives of Derrida and Deleuze. 2.
Principles of a “spatial” design studio approach. 3.
Effects of the computer on society.
Architecture seems to have advanced the explo-ration of form not as a de-contextualized abstract entity, but rather as an object that is shaped by a multiplicity of fields.
For the last two conceptual categories: New prac-tices, tools, pedagogies, teaching approaches Architecture seems to have already followed some innovative practices in terms of educational tools and pedagogies: Exploring space through collabo-rative design, information and communication technologies, IT means of simulation for building performance, curricula that combine a spectrum of tendencies starting from EAAE/ENHSA and ending at the particular local conditions.
Architecture seems to have reconsidered research approaches towards: design methodologies and skills in knowledge, aesthetics of conceptual ideas,
preconceived conceptions about architectural form, history as an element of sustainability, expe-rience between architect and client, the role of the teacher as a tutor of self-questioning.
Architecture seems to have looked through a virtual window, following sometimes a psychoana-lytic pedagogical perspective and at other times shifting the role of the architect from an “object”
designer to a “process” designer.
Architecture seems to keep asking for a strategy:
for (re)organization and reinterpretation of reality through interdisciplinarity and for cognitive oper-ations that can be treated as transformative tools in creative practices.
Architecture seems to follow some technological and interdisciplinary teaching approaches towards the architectural studio coursework and some teaching tools such as the Building Information Model as a multiple entity or a model for return-ing “back in shape”.
Architecture seems to introduce innovative teach-ing approaches towards “readteach-ing” the reality through the notion of “layering” (not as a stratifi-cation, folding, collage or montage, but as a form of abstraction).
At the end, an extended research programme “A comparative study: Urban strategies and digital design tools in contemporary architectural educa-tion” brought to light a documentation for the introduction of digital design tools in 51 design courses in Europe.
It is almost impossible for someone participating in this workshop not to mention the sense of a lack of accomplishment, an almost real starvation for more insights, for further exploration and research on the initial questioning. Talking about questioning; the mind is not centred only on the initially formulated ones. The initial questions have already been multiplied from a diversity of points of departure, perspectives and angles. It is rather obvious that during the process of the workshop, the initial questions have already been engrafted by the germ of its own content. A content which enclaves the “virtual”; a content
though, at any level and aspect; an actualization, though, in the terms of a rather famous phrase by A. Zaera-Polo and F. Moussavi “the actualization of the virtual can never operate by resemblance….it requires from tools that will allow us to see, to imagine and to conceptualize what we have never seen before”
(Zaera-Polo and Moussavi 1997, 103). ■
Bibliography
Foreign Office Architects ltd, Zaera-Polo A. and Moussavi F. (1997) «The production of the virtual», in Sakamura K., Suzuki H. (eds) The virtual architecture. Tokyo: Tokyo University Digital Museum.
More than 275 people from all over the world participated in the 2nd VELUX Daylight Symposium which took place on 6-7 May 2007 in Bilbao, Spain. Among the participants were EAAE President Per Olaf Fjeld (Norway) and EAAE News Sheet Editor Anne Elisabeth Toft (Denmark).
According to VELUX, the purpose of the sympo-sium was to create an international platform for cross-disciplinary exchange of knowledge, view-points and visions for daylight in buildings1. The invited keynote speakers were leading figures from around the world within the fields of lighting consultancy, architecture, engineering, medicine, physics and science. The participants were also a mix of various nations and professional groups.
With this interesting event taking place at the Guggenheim Museum, VELUX once more proved itself to be a committed opinion former within the architectural discipline.
As a manufacturer of roof windows and skylight solutions, VELUX has always been closely
connected to the design and construction of build-ings. However, it is the proclaimed strategy of the company to contribute to the continued debate among professionals about daylight quality in buildings and to lead the development of better living environments with daylight and fresh air.2 VELUX’ initiatives in this area go in a number of directions. The company is currently initiating research and demonstration projects in the field of daylight quality, indoor comfort and low energy consumption. It awards a grant - the International VELUX Award for Students of Architecture “Light of Tomorrow” (organized in co-operation with the EAAE and the UIA) - and it sponsors the EAAE Prize: Writings in Architectural Education. In 2005 VELUX launched the architectural magazine Daylight and Architecture, and in 2005 it also organized its first VELUX Daylight Symposium.
The symposium took place in Budapest and proved to be such a success that it set the scene for more symposiums to come. VELUX hopes that the symposiums will generate a forum which will
“allow ample space for discussions of theory and practice defining a “common language” -discussing how to define quality in buildings, and how to achieve daylight quality in projects.”3
The discussions of the 2nd VELUX Daylight Symposium focussed on two things: Daylight conditions in schools and the relationship between daylighting and students’ well-being and perfor-mance; and: Architectural education and the teaching of daylight. Per Olaf Fjeld served as moderator in a discussion session one of five -with the heading: “Education, teaching daylight”.
The two-day event began in the afternoon of Sunday 6 May when participants were taken on guided tours to daylit reference buildings in Bilbao. These included among others the
“Fosteritos” Metro System by Foster and Partners (1988-1995, 1997-2004); the Biblioteca Foral de Bizkaia by Gloria Iriate, Eduardo Mugica and Augustin de la Brena (2004-2007); and the Conservatorio de Musica de Sarriko by Miguel Angel Campo and Roberto Ercilla (2003-2006).
The tours were followed by a grand welcome reception in the evening at the Palacio de
Congresos y de la Musica. The evening paid tribute to the core values of VELUX, as it celebrated the spirit of the VELUX 5 Oceans - the prestigious solo round-the-world race, characterised as the ulti-mate solo challenge and the longest and toughest sporting event in the world. The presence of the five skippers, who had just completed the race, cast glamour and excitement on the reception which culminated in Sir Robin Knox-Johnston’s keynote speech: Taking on the Elements. British born Knox-Johnston holds the legendary record as the first person to sail single-handed round the world non-stop. He has also set the record for the fastest circumnavigation in his time.
The following day - Monday 7 May - was dedi-cated to the discussions of daylight.
The discussions covered a lot of ground and were concerned with both daylight seen as related to large global complexes of problems as for instance climate changes and sustainability, and daylight and its affect on human health. At the same time there were discussions that – with special focus on educational methods and tools – dealt with teach-ing within the field of daylight at universities and schools of architecture.
The morning’s discussions focussed on “Daylight + Health + Schools”. They were opened by James R.
Benya (USA), Principal of Benya Lighting Design,